January 18, 2009

There has been a healthy debate in Letters on freedom of speech and the requirement, or lack thereof, to learn and speak English in the U.S. over the last few weeks. The debate has been fueled by labor secretary appointee Hilda Solis’ decision to conduct part of her selection speech in Spanish.

Every American ought to read Theodore Roosevelt’s thoughts on “Americanization” from his later years. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

What message would it send if Mexico’s labor secretary spoke to that country’s citizens in English?

December 18, 2008

Beth Sperry’s attempts to equate a gay person’s right to marry with American slavery (12/12, Letters) shows very little historical knowledge. Yes, slaves could not legally marry. Here the analogy ends.

Slaves were owned by their “masters.” They were bought and sold on the auction block like cattle. It was illegal for a slave to read or write or to practice their religion.

Slaves could not vote. Slaves worked from sunup to sundown for no wages. If a slave was caught off the owner’s property, he or she could legally be killed.

Fathers, mothers, children could be separated at the whim of the owner and never see each other again. I could go on.

I certainly do not want to minimize anyone’s quest for civil rights. However, please, be sure the analogies have some accurate historical context.

December 11, 2008

Jonah Goldberg (12/4, Opinion) writes that “gay-rights groups … and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war.” Goldberg implies that people ought not to work to change cultural traditions. But what if those traditions are unjust?

America has traditionally denied gay people equal civil rights, but that tradition is immoral. All Americans should have the same rights to freedom and self-development.

Would Goldberg have called slaves escaping their masters in the antebellum South “aggressors in the culture war?”

December 09, 2008

I am not a particularly heroic man. I honestly admit that if I or my loved ones were trapped in a burning building or attacked by armed criminals, I would much prefer that we be saved by the professionals — the fire department or the police, for example. But if the professionals cannot or will not save us, then I pledge that by God I will do what I can to save me and mine.

I believe that the founders of our great America, the brave men and women who struggled, suffered and died in that endeavor, shared my feelings when they wrote the Second Amendment for individuals into the U.S. Constitution.

December 06, 2008

John R. Ratzlaff, like so many others arguing against the rights of individuals to bear arms, argues in favor of “militias” (12/3, Opinion, “As I See It: Right to bear arms focused on militias, not individuals”). His statement that, “the meaning of the Second Amendment at the time seems explicit: The right to bear arms belongs to the militia for the purpose of defending the State” is just simply wrong.

Ratzlaff conveniently ignores the fact that, during the time frame when the Second Amendment was framed and ratified, militia persons were usually expected to provide their own weapons, equipment and supplies. In fact, the origins of the right to bear arms go back to England in the 12th century, when King Henry II obligated all “freemen” to bear arms for public defense.

The “originalist” interpretation, “according to the ‘common sense’ meaning and definition of the document’s words at the time they were written” can lead to no other conclusion than an individual right to bear arms.

Charles BlackLeavenworth

I appreciate Professor John Ratzlaff’s comments and interpretation that only militias should have guns, per the Second Amendment. However learned he may be, he completely failed to mention the second half of the 2nd Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps he has a liberal cataract in his eye that caused this oversight.

Bruce LuedemanIndependence

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers

The primary author of the Constitution wrote these words in descriptive support of the document itself. The militias of the time were made up of the common citizen. Shopkeepers, craftsmen and farmers picked up their personal rifles and stood, shoulder to shoulder, to fight the tyranny of an overbearing government.

Last summer my wife and I spent a week in Colonial Williamsburg, Va., as everyone should. There, we stood in the Powder Magazine, a building that housed the black powder and lead musket balls to supply the citizens in time of threat. There were no barracks at this site, because the militia was the citizens. Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the British raided the magazine and stole the powder, disarming the citizens.

It scares me to the bone that people who want to distort history for their own cause are in a position to influence our youth.

December 04, 2008

For many years our father, Steve Bailey, took great pleasure in voicing his opinion on The Star’s Letters page. He would excitedly call each of us to say he had once again “been published.” He believed that everyone should have the right to voice their opinion on any subject matter without repercussion.

We’d like to thank The Star for providing a forum for him to feel heard and for keeping alive our country’s tradition of freedom of speech.

December 01, 2008

I am sure it is not the First Amendment, since she is exercising her free speech and criticizing President Bush.

Roxie, if you really are concerned about our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I suggest you educate yourself and pay attention to members of Congress. Your beloved Democratic Party has been trying to infringe on your right to bear arms. Sen. Chuck Schumer is trying to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which is nothing but censorship of talk radio. Why? God forbid should conservative talk radio criticize Barack Obama.

November 23, 2008

Liberals who feel stung by the truths expressed by some conservative radio talk show hosts are determined to either get them off the air or obligate them to share time for liberal agendas. Perhaps a review of the U.S. Constitution would be a prerequisite for those who would even think of introducing any legislation to ban or curb free speech.

Have not recent attempts by the liberal wing to offer radio programs analogous to that of Rush Limbaugh and others failed miserably? Could it be that they have not found a person capable of hosting an interesting program? Or found writers and producers capable of developing an interesting format? No wonder liberals want to deep-six Rush.

One might suggest that should the “fairness rule” be forced upon talk show hosts it should also apply to newspaper media. That is, The Star should no longer be able to edit in their favorites among the candidates for various governmental offices.

This reminds one of another old adage, “What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.”

Warren O. EdmondsExcelsior Springs

Two days after the election, I was on the road from the dark before dawn till nearly midnight. My time was spent listening to AM radio talk shows from all over the country.

First of all, these shows are no longer “talk shows.” These hosts are pure propagandists, preaching a gospel of division and hate.

It is time for America to demand that the airwaves owned by all Americans no longer be used as a vehicle of ignorance by such a vengeful few. Clearly, there are enough alternative outlets for ignorance to limit the airwaves to fair and balanced use.

Bear in mind, this was two days after we elected the next president. During the campaign, both candidates sincerely spoke of “reaching across the aisle,” inclusion and one America. One candidate’s slogan was “America First.”

So much for “America First.” It is clear that Republicans intend to spend the 77 days between the election and inauguration sowing the seeds of hatred and failure. I fear for the safety of our next president and believe that danger is being created by those who want to deny the absolute failure of the current president.

October 18, 2008

In his “As I See It” column (10/15, Opinion, “Liberties hanging in the balance”), UMKC constitutional law professor and Kansas Republican Party chairman Kris Kobach professes that constitutional rights will change depending on which presidential candidate is elected.

Before Mr. Kobach adds “fortune teller” to his impressive resume, perhaps he should consider the history of conservative presidents appointing liberal justices to our highest court. One of the dissenting judges in the June 2008 Heller decision concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms was liberal David Souter, who was appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush.

The other case Kobach mentions, the 2005 Kelo decision, violated the eminent domain section of the Fifth Amendment regarding the taking of private property only for public use. The majority judges in that case included Souter — again — and liberal Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan.

Kobach’s column is a typical article connected to a desperate political party that knows it and sees it but doesn’t want to tell it.